Oh, Dear Boss: Druitt's on a Sticky Wicket

[harry]

Is Phillip's comments challenging the opinion Of Bond,Herlock?.Did he say that Bond was wrong?That Mckenzie couldn't be a ripper victim?
As far as I am aware,the terms dictating who,and under what circumstances a 'Police suspect' is made hasn't changed to the degree that we should dismiss a present day assessment.Neither has the law changed.So yes I can use that information.You on the other hand object, because it is clear you have not the slightest idea what the terms really mean.
The police in 1888 and afterwards,indicated there were no suspects.There were no suspicions or proofs that would identify the Whitechapel Killer/s.That's what they indicated.Yet over a 100+ years later people are popping up like daises to prove those police were wrong.They have not been deemed to have succeeded.That does not mean a search should be abandoned.There are persons of interest who will always attract attention,but thats all they are,persons of interest.

[Wickerman]

While I am not, at this time, persuaded that MJD was JtR, I do find him to be one of the most interesting of suspects, and agree that, at this time, there is absolutely nothing to exclude him....

George, I think that is all that is being asked.
Simply, that theorists across the board admit, that after 87? years of investigation nothing has been found to rule him out.
Druitt is probably the most researched suspect in the case.

I still entertain the notion that he may have been murdered rather than have committed suicide.

That has me intrigued also, yet on the other hand I interpret the line on the suicide note that reads: "Since Friday, I felt I was going to be like mother...", as meaning he did not want to spend the rest of his life in an asylum. It's just that the suicide note may not be genuine.

[harry]

Just one comment on Feigenbaum.If anyone is interested,go to the appropriate paper archives,search for movement of vessels,look under vessels arriving,departing or in port,and part of the answer can be found.

[harry]

You cannot exclude a suspect,untill someone has been nominated as such,and you cannot name a suspect untill proof is established,and MacNaghten declared there was no proof.

[FISHY1118]

Is Phillip's comments challenging the opinion Of Bond,Herlock?.Did he say that Bond was wrong?That Mckenzie couldn't be a ripper victim?
As far as I am aware,the terms dictating who,and under what circumstances a 'Police suspect' is made hasn't changed to the degree that we should dismiss a present day assessment.Neither has the law changed.So yes I can use that information.You on the other hand object, because it is clear you have not the slightest idea what the terms really mean.
The police in 1888 and afterwards,indicated there were no suspects.There were no suspicions or proofs that would identify the Whitechapel Killer/s.That's what they indicated.Yet over a 100+ years later people are popping up like daises to prove those police were wrong.They have not been deemed to have succeeded.That does not mean a search should be abandoned.There are persons of interest who will always attract attention,but thats all they are,persons of interest.

That's a fair point.

[Herlock Sholmes]

They know who they are.

I know of no poster on here who can be considered an ardent Druittist or even a Druittist on these boards. Jon Hainsworth and David Anderson would have been considered as such but neither post anymore. This use of labels is an obvious ploy spread by posters who are less concerned with truth than they should be. Posters who resort to underhand tactics like ignoring what other posters actually post and then claim to know what they are thinking so that any reasoned debated with them becomes impossible.

[Trevor Marriott]

I know of no poster on here who can be considered an ardent Druittist or even a Druittist on these boards. .

take a look in the mirror !!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

I know of no poster on here who can be considered an ardent Druittist or even a Druittist on these boards. Jon Hainsworth and David Anderson would have been considered as such but neither post anymore. This use of labels is an obvious ploy spread by posters who are less concerned with truth than they should be. Posters who resort to underhand tactics like ignoring what other posters actually post and then claim to know what they are thinking so that any reasoned debated with them becomes impossible.

You should read my post again , you missed something .


Trevor noticed it

[Herlock Sholmes]

Is Phillip's comments challenging the opinion Of Bond,Herlock?.Did he say that Bond was wrong?That Mckenzie couldn't be a ripper victim?
As far as I am aware,the terms dictating who,and under what circumstances a 'Police suspect' is made hasn't changed to the degree that we should dismiss a present day assessment.Neither has the law changed.So yes I can use that information.You on the other hand object, because it is clear you have not the slightest idea what the terms really mean.
The police in 1888 and afterwards,indicated there were no suspects.There were no suspicions or proofs that would identify the Whitechapel Killer/s.That's what they indicated.Yet over a 100+ years later people are popping up like daises to prove those police were wrong.They have not been deemed to have succeeded.That does not mean a search should be abandoned.There are persons of interest who will always attract attention,but thats all they are,persons of interest.

Harry I really can’t understand why you are pursuing this point as we know that opinion was divided at the time and in the years proceeding as to whether she was a victim or not. In the modern era her case has been looked into by various students of the case (and presumably many with medical knowledge) and still opinion is divided as to whether she was a ripper victim or not. I’m afraid that this is simply a fact Harry, so to claim that she was definitely a victim would be as dishonest as if I, or anyone else claimed as a fact that she wasn’t. We just don’t know and I fail to see why you and Trevor can’t accept this very obvious fact?

The meaning of the term is irrelevant Harry (but yes I do know what it means) what is relevant are the circumstances under which they are employed. Do I really have to keep repeating the obvious but we are not undertaking a Police Investigation? We are not under the same constraints. We don’t have a ‘procedure’ to follow. We aren’t in danger of a culprit walking free because of an error that we’ve made. No one is going to go on to kill because we looked at the ‘wrong’ suspect.

Ok, so we stop calling our ‘suspects’ suspects. We call them ‘persons of interest’ and off we go. What difference would that make Harry. Absolutely zero. In fact less than zero because people would ignore the suggestion and continue to use ‘suspect.’ It’s completely and utterly pointless and for the life of me I can’t see why you and Trevor pursue it when clearly no one agrees with you on the subject.

You cannot exclude a suspect,untill someone has been nominated as such,and you cannot name a suspect untill proof is established,and MacNaghten declared there was no proof.

There is no proof or evidence against any suspects or persons of interest Harry nevertheless it’s rather strange to say the least that you appear to be antagonistic toward Druitt whilst at the same time being very open on the candidacy of a man that cannot even be shown to have been in the the same country at the time of the murders? You have no issue doubting the honesty of a Chief Constable of Metropolitan Police but you give a pass to an American lawyer who was a cocaine user who committed suicide? You have no problem commenting that only MacNaghten heard this ‘private info’ but aren’t at all troubled that only Lawton heard Feigenbaum make his alleged confession? Should we apply the same criteria to all or not Harry?

Druitt has been nominated by Sir Melville Macnaghten, a highly respected man, who did so on the basis of evidence that he saw but, as far as we know, no one else did apart from the person who presented it to him and Druitt’s family. This of course makes it absolutely fair that we should ask questions and raise doubts and concerns. But it’s just as illogical to say that this should be dismissed as it would be if I, or anyone else, had claimed that this proved guilt. The problem is that it’s the position to Druitt that is claiming opinion as fact. That is claiming to know what we just can’t know. Even-handedness is usual absent on this subject as you and Trevor continue to demonstrate.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You should read my post again , you missed something .


Trevor noticed it

I didn’t miss it at all Fishy. I was wondering if you would be open and honest rather than snide. You chose snide.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ll make a general comment here (not mentioning names or making specific accusations of course)

Anyone that calls me a Druittist (whether ardent or otherwise) is a dishonest poster. They continue to ignore my position on the subject which I must have stated on these boards 100 times, purely so they can pursue their own disreputable agendas. It’s the kind of dishonest name-calling which is the equivalent of Trolling and is done purely to discredit when they have no actual content to contribute. It’s the kind of underhandedness that I’ve come to expect from some quarters. What kind of debate can we expect when a poster says “my opinion is x,” then he’s constant confronted with “yes but you actually mean y?”

Its tiresome, it’s thoroughly dishonest, it’s snide, and it’s not conducive to open debate (which is what these posters are trying to achieve in the first place.)

[FISHY1118]

I know of no poster on here who can be considered an ardent Druittist or even a Druittist on these boards. Jon Hainsworth and David Anderson would have been considered as such but neither post anymore. This use of labels is an obvious ploy spread by posters who are less concerned with truth than they should be. Posters who resort to underhand tactics like ignoring what other posters actually post and then claim to know what they are thinking so that any reasoned debated with them becomes impossible.

Why wait for a response ill just point it out , you are by your own admission are you not in support of druitt remaining a suspect, as there is no proof that exonerates him from being jtr ? .[im pretty sure thats where you stand on him correct ?]

So in my post if you read it properly and carefulfully you shouldnt have jumped the gun ''Ive noticed that the most ardent supporters of Druitt ''remaining a viable suspect'' for the ripper murders'' etc etc.

''Remaining'' , is a bit like ''out of hand'' .Its all in the way its worded.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why wait for a response ill just point it out , you are by your own admission are you not in support of druitt remaining a suspect, as there is no proof that exonerates him from being jtr ? .[im pretty sure thats where you stand on him correct ?]

So in my post if you read it properly and carefulfully you shouldnt have jumped the gun ''Ive noticed that the most ardent supporters of Druitt ''remaining a viable suspect'' for the ripper murders'' etc etc.

''Remaining'' , is a bit like ''out of hand'' .Its all in the way its worded.

Nonsense.

Fishy is an apt title as you spend so much time wriggling on the hook. If you desisted from the underhand you wouldn’t have to spend so much time ‘decoding’ your posts. Everyone can clearly see your intention.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why wait for a response ill just point it out , you are by your own admission are you not in support of druitt remaining a suspect, as there is no proof that exonerates him from being jtr ? .[im pretty sure thats where you stand on him correct ?]

So in my post if you read it properly and carefulfully you shouldnt have jumped the gun ''Ive noticed that the most ardent supporters of Druitt ''remaining a viable suspect'' for the ripper murders'' etc etc.

''Remaining'' , is a bit like ''out of hand'' .Its all in the way its worded.

I’m in support of every single suspect remaining a suspect until they can categorically be eliminated with indisputable evidence. Not just Druitt.

[FISHY1118]

Omg its right there in black and white and you still dont get it .

Pleassssssssssseeeee someone point it out for him for christ sake, enough already.